seo_roadmap_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns counts of completed, in-progress, and suggested items, which conveys a read-only nature and the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or data freshness, and does not mention the optional brandId parameter's effect on results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output fields. Every word is informative, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the output categories (completed, in-progress, suggested counts) and implies the scope (content roadmap). There is no output schema to explain return values, but the description covers the essential fields. It could mention the brandId scope, but the schema already does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes the only parameter (brandId) with a clear description ('Brand ID (defaults to active brand)'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool provides (progress stats with counts for completed, in-progress, and suggested items) and distinguishes it from related roadmap tools like seo_list_roadmap or seo_roadmap_get. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'returns', making it slightly less definitive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another sibling (e.g., seo_list_roadmap) would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.